Atheist.  Rapper.  Homophobe.  Should the “atheist movement” withhold support?

September 17, 2009

Self-identified "atheist rapper" Charlie Check'm is relatively new on the scene.  I was first introduced to him through a few self-promoting e-mails he sent in February announcing a "Hot New Atheist Performer":

Hi, I'm informing you about a hot new Atheist rapper who has music that has the potential to crossover to the mainstream media…This is a Good way to turn Atheists views into "cool" views.

I'm informing you because if you know of any Atheist friendly radio shows, tv shows, magazines, newsletters, or ect. I would like to be a guess and tell a story and have a few songs played or even perform if it's a tv show or if it's magazines or newletters, I would like an article about the music.

...I need as much as support I can get from Atheist organizations. The purpose of my  music is to promote Atheist views and improve the image of Atheists

I did a quick YouTube search and found the song "Roll with an Atheist"—it sounded like interesting stuff, not as skilled as some music out there, but decent nonetheless.  I sent a friend request on Facebook to stay on top of news.

That's all I thought about it, until last week.  At some point I saw an update from Charlie on my Facebook wall that said,

Advantages of being homophobic: Befriending faggots is possibly inviting uninvited come ons. Homophobia scares off dykes and faggots. Some dykes and faggots prey on straight people. Gay friendly straight people are homos main targets. Why invite uninvited come ons?

Huh, I thought.  Maybe I read that wrong.

But a couple of days later, I saw another status update from Charlie: "new song "NO GAY MARRIAGE"".

That's when I decided a little more investigation might prove worthwhile.

Well, I checked out his main website and listened to a few song snippets.  Besides the aforementioned song titled "No Gay Marriage" (which begins with the lines "Something's wrong with your brain, why won't you just admit that something's wrong with your brain..."), there are songs called "Christian and a Homo" and "Dyke Chick".  I won't go into detail at the moment about my opinion of the viewpoint expressed in these songs.  Let's say for now that I strongly disagree with the message.

But now I was faced with a dilemma.  Should I defriend Charlie on Facebook, since I didn't want it to be implied that I support his views in any way, or should I maintain the weak Facebook relationship we have because it's at least worthwhile to keep tabs on his postings?  I decided to throw the question out publicly to my Facebook friends along with a link to Charlie's site.

The response was quick and passionate.  This one sums up the views pretty well: "Wow. I would drop-kick this clown off my list so fast....."

One person alerted me to the fact that Charlie Check'm had already been banned from the social networking site Atheist Nexus , "[not] for his views (as atrocious as they are) but rather for the hateful way in which they were expressed and related troll-like behavior."  (More on this below.)

That could've been the end of it, but I hadn't yet defriended Charlie on Facebook.  And at some point he decided to chime in with a response to the comments:

I'm bored so I think Ill just fuck with you faggots for a while. Homophobia scares off faggots and dykes which is a good thing. It doesnt matter if I'm really a homophobe or not. What's important is that faggots and dykes think I am. I don't want to worry about a faggot pretending to be my friend when he secretely just wants to suck my dick. I want to make sure my friends are TRUE friends and not horney ass faggots. It's simply inappropriate…I just don't have much in common with faggots. Faggots think about sticking their dicks in men shit holes and I think about sexy women. I talk about women a lot and I know faggots wouldn't be interested in that.

A later comment:

but I can appeal to lots of Christians who are smart enough to know a MALE IS SUPPOSE TO HAVE A MALE'S BRAIN. So you faggot and dyke atheists are suppose to be smart but you don't even know that penises and shit holes don't go together...Now that's some nasty ass shit. So Pro-faggot Atheists can see that God believers are delusional but they can't see a dyke bitch is crazy when a dyke bitch claims to not like men but finds a woman who DRESSES LIKE A MAN, TALKS LIKE A MAN, WALKS LIKE A MAN, EVEN WEARS A FUCKIN STRAPPED ON FAKE DICK TO TRY AND TO BE A MAN. I'm a strong Atheist and dykes and faggots are crazier than God believers.

I'll spare you the further comments.

I mentioned that Charlie had been banned from Atheist Nexus already.  According to an article on examiner.com , he had also been invited to perform at an Atheist Nexus-sponsored "Live Dance Party" at the Atheist Alliance International convention in October, but the invitation to perform was revoked.  The article reports Brother Richard of Atheist Nexus saying, "While he is free to hold whatever views he chooses, he cannot represent Nexus in any form...While most of his statements were simply ignorant and prejudiced, there were a few that were clearly bigoted and hateful. Even when others tried to show him the error of his ways, he ignored their points and became even more repugnant."

That same article says that Charlie responded on MySpace with the following:

I'm an Atheist rapper/activist. The pro-gay Atheist  members at Atheist Nexus know this and they KNOW my music is good for Atheists and they KNOW I fight for Atheist BUT THEY DON'T CARE. If they don't care about the fight for Atheists, they don't care about atheism. They only care about their gay agenda.

Which brings me to the question I asked at the start: Should atheists, and those involved in the "atheist movement" (which overlaps the humanist, skeptic, freethought, etc. movements), be concerned if an avowed advocate for atheism expresses such views?  Should atheist organizations withhold support, and individual atheists who disagree turn their backs?

Another question: If someone does not rely on tradition or religious authority to form ethical views, are there any good reasons (besides "I find it yucky") to be so virulently homophobic?

I will also follow up on these issues in a future post.  I have pretty strong opinions on this, but I am also curious to see what the readers of this blog think.

(Disclaimer: These are, of course, my own views; they do not necessarily represent the views of the Center for Inquiry nor of its affiliated organizations.)

Comments:

#51 Debbie Goddard on Friday September 18, 2009 at 5:43pm

Hello Charlie,

First, let me mention that I appreciate you writing this last post, and I really appreciate that you’re taking part in this.

Second, there’s a lot can be said about “normal” versus “abnormal” development and function.  And there’s a big step from that to “immoral”, “wrong”, “mental disorder”, “malfunction”, and the like.

More on this in a minute.
DebGod

#52 charlie check'm (Guest) on Friday September 18, 2009 at 6:00pm

You said,

You can’t respectfully argue for the denial of someone’s rights.

My reply,

“rights”? If a woman wants the right to marry a voice in her head, I can respectfully argue for the denial of that particular “right”

Schizophrenic people want to marry a voice because they’re schizophrenic.

Gay people want to marry the same sex because they’re gay

The desire to marry the same sex is driven by a brain malfunction

The desire to marry an imaginary voice is driven by schizophrenia.

The only difference is, there’s no medication to treat homosexuality.

You said,

Complaining that people received your position against gay marriage with anger is ridiculous.

My reply

Why is it ridiculous? is it because gays need anger management?

You said,

The position you’re holding is as equally intolerant and morally despicable as people who “respectfully” defended miscegenation laws in Early America.

My reply,

Early American didn’t want to have a right that was driven by brain malfunctions.

You said,

Second, your fear of “gay sexual advances” is a well known stereotype that homophobic

My reply,

No it’s not fear. It’s more like wanting to live comfortably without unnecessary hassels. If what you’re saying is true, evcryone is a phobic of something.

You said,

The idea of homosexuals as being completely unable to control themselves around the gender they are attracted to is deeply offensive and ignorant.

My reply,

That’s a straw man. I never said that. I gave several examples to explain my views.  I’ll give one more. Even though people who practice canabalism may not eat me, I just dont’ feel comfortable around them. Even though faggots may not come on to me, I just don’t feel comfortable around them.

You said,

Finally, responding to hate mail by using words like “faggot” or “dyke” indicate that do hold homophobic views.

My reply,

No that’s not true. They called me a homophobe BEFORE I called them faggots and dykes. Calling me a homophobe was an attempt to make me fold. I retaliated instead of folding and started calling them faggots and dykes.

You said,

If i’m arguing about something regarding an issue within a minority community, if my position brings forth anger, I don’t use ethnic slurs as a response. You’re arguments are homophobic nonsense and that’s why people are pissed off.

My reply,

Intelligent minorities who can accept the truth won’t get pissed. If one says, “there’s a high crime rate in minority communities, I would agree because it’s true. Just like an intelligent faggot should agree that homos have brain malfunctions.

#53 jacob h (Guest) on Friday September 18, 2009 at 6:04pm

this is your basic argument, quote:

“When a part of a male’s brain has FUNCTIONAL similarities to a heterosexual FEMALE’S brain, that would make the male’s brain a MALFUNCTIONING BRAIN.”

first of all, no neurologist or scientist of any kind would accept that definition, but that even if we grant you that manufactured definition-

part of ANY male’s brain, say yours or mine, shares a GREAT MANY “functional similarities to a heterosexual female’s brain”- the examples are endless, such as the fight-or-flight response, aversion to heights, attraction to certain foods, aversion to certain food and odors, tender and sympathetic feelings to the youth of the species, both brains fall prey to the same optical illusions and blind spots, I could go on and on and on…ALL of these are “functional” similarities, unless you would like to redefine “functional” as well.  In fact, it could be argued that the male brain and the female brain are more alike then different - why would an “attraction to males” similarity-to-females be deigned a “malfunction” by you, when a “prone to introspection” similarity-to-females wouldn’t? (or would it?)

#54 charlie check'm (Guest) on Friday September 18, 2009 at 6:07pm

You said,

but unfortunately, ‘atheist’ does not always equate to rational thinking.

My reply,

and that’s why you can NOT see that a male’s brain is called a male’s brain because it is a male’s brain so it’s suppose to function like a male’s brain.

#55 Buffy (Guest) on Friday September 18, 2009 at 6:15pm

Drop him for the same reasons you’d drop any other irrational, bigoted piece of scum.  If you wouldn’t be “friends” with someone who hated black people, Asians or any other group for no good reason then why befriend this nut just because he’s an atheist?  He gives all the same lame-arsed excuses to hate gay people sans “God told me to”.  He actually seems to think every gay man wants to bone him.  He’s as insane and egotistical as he is hateful.

#56 charlie check'm (Guest) on Friday September 18, 2009 at 6:16pm

You said,

part of ANY male’s brain, say yours or mine, shares a GREAT MANY “functional similarities to a heterosexual female’s brain”-

My reply,

You’re putting emphasis on human basic brain functions and on the other hand you’re completely IGNORING the differences between male and female’s brains. 

Scientists can distinguish the differences between male’s and female’s brain. They know what part of the brain does what in each gender. The part of the male homosexual’s brain that TYPICALLY represents MALE brain functions was found to be like the female’s brain.

#57 DagoRed on Friday September 18, 2009 at 6:22pm

Charlie—
If you’re MATURE enough to see that
Nice mature use of capitalization there….

why can’t you see that I don’t hate homos?  I’m not the one who’s misusing the word hate. 

I didn’t say you hated ‘homos’, nor did I accuse you of misusing the word hate.  You need to stop putting words in my mouth and learn to read more carefully.  I am merely saying that you’re an immature thinker who can’t control his childish impulses with his intellect – something that adult society regularly expects all of us to do in many instances, such as this one.  Whether your revulsion to homosexuality is hate-based or merely a simple gag-reflex doesn’t really matter – the fact is, by your own admissions, it makes you feel uncomfortable.  There comes a time in everyone’s life when we overcome such childish revulsions.  It’s not society’s problem that you find homosexuality repugnant (or whatever you wish to call it) any more than it is society’s problem that Christians often find casual sex and prostitution repugnant.  Its not society’s problem when my five-year-old daughter is afraid of the dark, nor is it society’s problem when children find gory movies traumatic.  You are simply denying your own mental dysfunction here.  Stop trying to make the rest of society adopt your neurosis as “normal” and be truthful with yourself.  You are throwing all kinds of irrational shit out into the world as a smoke screen – anything to keep your mind busy and away from accepting the truth here—that you, not homos, are the source for this whole disagreement.

Hate mail is a clear indication of hate and I’ve been getting it from people who share your position.  I haven’t sent anyone hate mail.

How righteous of you! You simply blog and send group posts on social networks expressing your repugnant and hurtful ideas—and how does this difference make you a better person?  Stop with the martyr complex already.  You aren’t fooling anyone.

#58 charlie check'm (Guest) on Friday September 18, 2009 at 6:26pm

1. Notice a man named gaytard

2. Notice gaytard is sexually attracted to men.

3. Assumes something is wrong with Gaytard’s brain

4. Checks gaytards brain

5. Realizes that a part of his brain doesn’t function like a male’s brain

6. Comes to the conclusion that gaytard has a brain malfunction

IT’S NOT THAT DIFFICULT

#59 DagoRed on Friday September 18, 2009 at 6:33pm

A male’s brain is called a male’s brain because it is a male’s brain.

Nice circular reasoning there.  I am called God because I am God….

When a part of a male’s brain has FUNCTIONAL similarities to a heterosexual FEMALE’S brain, that would make the male’s brain a MALFUNCTIONING BRAIN..

WRONG! Where is it defined that males and females have gender exclusive qualities?  You are wrongly equating rarity with dysfunction.

#60 Debbie Goddard on Friday September 18, 2009 at 6:34pm

I do think that Charlie’s making some relevant arguments here, and he’s making some way-off—base ones too…Here’s one argument I think is relevant, which I’ll try to present without the trash-talking:

* Homosexuals have brains that more closely resemble the brains of members of the opposite sex.
* This brain difference is a malfunction.
* Therefore, there’s something wrong with the brains of gays.
* Therefore, society should not permit same-sex marriage.

Well, there *is* evidence that the brains of some homosexual males have some characteristics that more closely resemble the brains of females.

But here’s what I think, and where I disagree:

* Society does prescribe gender roles based on sex, but there is nothing inherently wrong with exhibiting behaviors of the so-called “opposite gender”.

Example: Is there anything inherently wrong with a man wearing a skirt?  This is overwhelmingly seen in macho American culture as “less manly” (unless it’s a good Scottish kilt!), but so what?  What about women, straight or gay, who don’t wear makeup?  Consider peoples outside of the dominant U.S. culture, places where the rules might be different about skirt- and makeup-wearing.

* Gender in culture can be seen as a continuum.

* Sex isn’t always as binary (male/female) as some think.  Take Caster Semenya, for example.

* Thinking “Gay Sex is Disgusting” isn’t good enough an argument for there being something wrong with it.

* Same-sex marriage, and gay sex, is not evenly analogous with bestiality and incest.  Prohibiting same-sex marriage is more analogous to prohibiting miscegenation.

* Even if many male homosexuals do have some brain structures that more closely resemble female brain structures, or if levels of testosterone in fetal development for many lesbians was closer to that of males than of females, or whatever, I do not think that laws about adoptions, hospital visitation rights, sex, property inheritance, tax benefits, and whatever other benefits legal marriages confer, should be determined by the genitalia or sex of the individuals involved.  That seems like unjustifiable sexual discrimination to me.

* Even if everything I listed in the previous point was true about differences in brain structures between homosexuals and heterosexuals, even if one wants to attribute the words “malfunction” or “disorder” to those “abnormal” states, more of an argument would need to be made before that fact is connected in any way to arguing against same-sex marriage.  For example, why should a woman who had a higher amount of testosterone present in the womb than most other women did (comparing it, of course, to the average or “norm”) be prevented from marrying someone she’s in a supportive and loving long-term relationship with?  The sex of the other person in that relationship doesn’t matter.

My two cents for now,
DebGod

#61 jacob h (Guest) on Friday September 18, 2009 at 6:34pm

1 notice a man named angryrappa

2 notice angryrappa seems really angry all the time

3 assume something is wrong with angryrappa’s brain (this is the genius part, the part that makes it all work)

4 check angryrappa’s brain

5 realize that his brain doesnt function like a normal male brain, it’s completely flooded with testosterone

6 come to the conclusion that angryrappa has a brain malfunction

IT’S SUPER SIMPLE

#62 Buffy (Guest) on Friday September 18, 2009 at 6:35pm

Charlie,

Produce your credentials or stop making claims about the “abnormality” of gay people’s brains and their sexual orientation.  Please note that junk science from NARTH and the likes of Paul Cameron don’t count. I’m beginning to think you’re all of 12 considering the content of your posts.

#63 DagoRed on Friday September 18, 2009 at 6:37pm

IT’S NOT THAT DIFFICULT

If your a simpleton who insists rarity of a human trait means dysfunction—then yes, I guess you’re right.  Really tall people, short people, people with green eyes—they’re all malfunctioning too, right?  When are you going to stop with this clownish argument?

#64 Debbie Goddard on Friday September 18, 2009 at 6:41pm

Oh, I wanted to clarify my uses of the terms “sex” and “gender”, as it might help some people who are used to conflating the two in general speech.  I just Googled “difference between gender sex” and found this, which explains it pretty well:

* Sex refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs.

* Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine.

http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html

So, gender is almost always connected to culture.  Quick example: In the U.S., it’s not usually considered manly to get eyebrows waxed.  In Puerto Rico, that’s not the case.  In u.S., two men holding hands is “gay”.  In most of Europe and Asia, it’s not unmasculine to do so.  etc.

#65 theclapp on Friday September 18, 2009 at 7:00pm

@DagoRed #40: Thanks for your kind words.  I appreciate the pointer on anti-foundationalism.  The books I’ve read that have influenced my thoughts on philosophy are (among others), A Guide to Rational Living, by Albert Ellis and Robert Harper; To Be Or Not, an E-Prime Anthology (and other writings on E-Prime); Godel, Escher, Bach, by Douglas Hofstadter, and (don’t laugh) Illusions, by Richard Bach.  I should probably also mention Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, by Francis Beckwith, which I read long ago, and found pretty convincing at the time, but should probably re-read, ‘cause I suspect I wouldn’t any more.

As an aside, I have often thought that the skeptic bunch (Center For Inquiry et al) and the Society for General Semantics (where I learned about E-Prime) should get in bed together, if you’ll forgive the imagery.  Many of their goals dovetail, it seems to me.

I also really have thought a lot about my list of personal axioms, things I personally believe without proof, and even blogged about it a little.  It’s an amazingly short list, so far.    On the other hand, believing in reality covers a lot of ground.  Anyway, thinking about what you believe rewards study.  At least it did with me. 

#66 charlie check'm (Guest) on Friday September 18, 2009 at 7:11pm

I don’t have time to respond to all of that tonight because I have a NORMAL date with a beautiful WOMAN. I will respond so don’t get your hopes up.

#67 Kira (Guest) on Friday September 18, 2009 at 7:24pm

Just avoid sharp objects, Charlie.  You wouldn’t want to pop your date.

#68 theclapp on Friday September 18, 2009 at 7:51pm

@Rhology, #39:
I don’t want you to inhibit my freedom of speech, or torture me, ...and lots of other people feel the same way, and so we punish those who do on an individual level

That doesn’t tell me anything about whether it’s right or whether you actually have those rights.

But it does tell you what I value, and what others value, and it does discuss the consequences of behaving in a way contrary to those values.

You said rights come from human beings.  So can I give myself the right to kill anyone I want whenever I want?  To suppress your freedom of speech?  If not, why not?  Given that I’m sure you’ll say I can’t do that, what qualifications to “human rights come from human beings” will you make?

I said “Human rights are abstract ideas that arise as an emergent property of the selfishness of humans in groups.”  You certainly can attempt to kill, suppress speech, and so on.  And other humans certainly can penalize you for it, because you have exhibited behavior contrary to their values.

I don’t believe in God, so I can’t accept that human rights came from God.

Since you don’t believe in God, no answer you give wrt the origin of human rights will be reasonable or worth anything.  What I’m doing is showing how atheistic explanations of the origin of human rights are all impossible.

You haven’t done a great job of it, to me, so far.  As near as I can tell, I have expressed my position in a self-consistent manner grounded in reality.

Human rights arise from things that humans agree that other humans shouldn’t do to them. 

So whenever one tribe gets together and decides that the rival tribe is actually subhuman and should all be killed, alluvasudden that other tribe’s rights went away, right?  And what happens if both tribes simultaneously decide that? 
S African whites and Southern US slaveowners have at times decided that black people didn’t have rights.  So I guess they didn’t have rights, right?

Yes, you have it exactly.  Excellent work.

All of your examples show the changes over time and space of values that groups of humans have about other groups of humans.  In fact, it might be the case that only by agreeing that Tribe B is subhuman can Tribe A justify killing them all.  Meanwhile, Tribe C looks at Tribe A and says “Yo, y’all are f-ed up.”

The abolition of slavery in the US is an excellent example of a group of humans changing the way they evaluated the rights of another group of humans.

Furthermore, all of your examples discuss how people behave with respect to other people.  It’s all about how people interact.

So, again: Human rights don’t come from the universe, and they can’t come from a god, so where does that leave us?

(Let me give you a hint here - you have no good answers b/c you deny the God of the Bible.  Give it up and repent of your sin, trust Jesus.  Then you’ll actually have a reasonable answer for these very, very important questions.)

Really?  Pray enlighten me.  (This is just a figure of speech.)  What does the Bible have to say about slavery?  Oh, it says it’s fine.  What does the Bible have to say about mass murder?  Oh, if God does it, or God commands it, it says that it’s fine.  What does the Bible have to say about torture?  Oh, it says it’s fine, if God does it, or God commands it, or it’s to infidels or heathens or a variety of people that God frowns on.

Okay, I admit, that last bit I made up.  I’ve no idea what the Bible says about torture.  Sorry.

But as near as I can recall from Genesis and Exodus, it’s pretty clear on slavery and mass murder, especially if God does it or God commands it, but not necessarily.

#69 DagoRed on Friday September 18, 2009 at 9:49pm

theclapp (#66)—

I fellow Hofstadter reader!  That makes up for Illusions in a big way!  My sister, a very bright woman, was helped by Rhonda Byrne’s, The Secret, so, really, I pass no judgments here.  There is nothing wrong with beer and pretzels sociology at all (I place the Bible in this category, and I reluctantly admit that I enjoy reading from that decrepit behemoth from time to time and always get something ponderous out of it).  It’s just when people think that any single book (or anthology in the case of the Bible) has some “special” or “spiritual”  place in their lives (or worse, think it needs to have a place in everyone else’s life too) that I tend to wonder if they’ve got the capacity to read more than one book…or think and chew gum at the same time.  Much of the rest of your list I haven’t read myself, but I’ll give them a perusal. 

I also really have thought a lot about my list of personal axioms, things I personally believe without proof…It’s an amazingly short list, so far.

Same goes for me. In fact the older I get, the more the short list changes, which, indicates to me that, ultimately, there may be no viable list to be had there (or at least one we humans have access to) and that thought tends to return me to Camus’ absurdism on a regular basis.  Makes me think I might enjoy your Beckwith book on Relativism.

(also – I can’t help but notice you are going down the Hobbes/Locke Social Contract Theory path in your other discussion.  A fine tack indeed—something the US Constitution was based upon and the two-hundred+ years of American jurisprudence has more than adequately proven this godless principle viable and sound – but I have seen this same argument presented to Rho before – a couple of times.  He either doesn’t understand it fully, or it’s such an affront to his Divine Command Theory way of looking at the world, he feels he must *endlessly* push it around like Sisyphus and the Rock.  Either way, prepare yourself for Rho’s likely going to be—as Barney Frank recently said – “like arguing with a dining room table” when it comes to this avenue of thought.  Sorry to butt-in but I just need to kibitz when I see Rho involved in an argument; call it a personal vice).

#70 theclapp on Friday September 18, 2009 at 10:15pm

@DagoRed #70:
In fact the older I get, the more the short list changes

Really?  Why?  My two seem pretty fundamental.  What were yours?

As far as Hobbes & Locke, those names ring a bell (and not just because of Calvin and Ender’s Game), but I’ve not read them, than I can recall.  That’d be pretty funny if I was laboriously working out from first principles something those guys laid out clearly 200 years ago.

Appreciate the tip on Rho.  I’ve continued part of the discussion on his blog.  If you’re feeling masochistic, join in.  http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2009/09/atheists-wrangling-about-morality-its.html  The funny thing is, it seems like both of us understand and agree that we’re fundamentally talking past each other (different axioms), but we continue the discussion anyway.  It seems kind of irrational.  Hmmmmmm. 

#71 charlie checkm (Guest) on Saturday September 19, 2009 at 8:18am

You said,

Society does prescribe gender roles based on sex, but there is nothing inherently wrong with exhibiting behaviors of the so-called “opposite gender”.

My reply,

Societies have learned through thousands of years of experiences what roles are best to attract the mate of the opposite sex. Humans have learned to cater to natural selection.  So they raised their children to grow up to attract the best possible mate. That’s why all societies have similar gender roles.  Even the societies that weren’t influenced by each other have gender role similarities. 

It would NOT be a good idea to disregard thousands of years of experiences just to make homos feel like nothing is wrong with their brains.

#72 charlie checkm (Guest) on Saturday September 19, 2009 at 8:58am

You said,


“S African whites and Southern US slaveowners have at times decided that black people didn’t have rights.  So I guess they didn’t have rights, right?”

My reply,

This is just another example of flawed comparisons for the sake of justifying hate towards anyone who simply admits that gay people have brain malfunctions. (which is true)

Keep in mind that I oppose gay marriage but not the life style of gays (even though gay males are spreading the hiv virus through their bisexual partners)

So gay people have taken straw man arguments and used them to attack anyone who opposes gay marriage.

ex. “what we do in our bed rooms is none of your business”

No one said anything about what you do in your bed room.

ex. “You don’t want us to be happy”

If gay people can’t be happy without being married, they have other issues they need to work on.

ex. “You are treating us like racists treated blacks”

That’s a lie. No one is telling gays to sit at the back of the bus, use separate bath rooms (even though some of them look like the opposite gender of their own)

Black people as a whole were never out to cause disorder and marriage chaos in the name of rights.

Gay people as a whole ARE out to cause disorder and marriage chaos in the name of rights.

Black people as a whole don’t want society to fold so we can exercise something stemming from brain malfunctions.

Gay people as a whole DO want society to fold so they can exercise something stemming from a brain malfunction

Black people were hated and in some cases still hated because of skin color.

Gay people’s actions stemming from brain malfunctions is being stopped because our society has to have standards. We have to create our own ideas of normality.

Kids growing up in our society need to have a clear understanding that homosexuality and heterosexuality are not in the same category.  One of the ways to do this is to preserve marriage for heterosexuals and let gays have civil unions.


There is some evidence that some gay people will even be racist in the name of rights.

Some gay people blamed blacks for the success of prop 8 in the state of California.  I was called a “nigger” because I told some gay people I voted “yes” on prop 8. It’s a known fact that black people voted for yes and prop 8 the most. So some gay people took it out on blacks.

#73 charlie checkm (Guest) on Saturday September 19, 2009 at 9:26am

You said,

Wow.  So some random guy somewhere can make you unhappy by thinking you’re hot?

My reply,

I’ve been in situations where men kept staring at me. I was thinking to myself “I hope this faggot doesn’t come on to me. If he does, I will pretend I don’t know he’s gay and talk major shit about faggots”

#74 charlie checkm (Guest) on Saturday September 19, 2009 at 9:50am

You said,

I am merely saying that you’re an immature thinker

My reply,

So you think I’m an immature thinker because I oppose gay marriage and I know that immature thinkers need a clear understanding that heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships shouldn’t be in the same category. You’re just using any words you possibly can to downplay me in any way shape or form with no factual bases.

You said,

who can’t control his childish impulses with his intellect –

My reply,

First of all, are you assuming that everyone has childish impulses or just me?

How about you give me an example of one of my so called “childish impulses” so I can rip you to shreds.

You said,

something that adult society regularly expects all of us to do in many instances, such as this one.

My reply,

So you gays have tried to beat people into submission with the term “homophobic” but now you have a new tactic.  You’re trying to claim that anyone who opposes gay marriage is immature.

What will you try next?

You homos are full of deceitful, misleading, unfair and dishonest tactics.


  Whether your revulsion to homosexuality is hate-based or merely a simple gag-reflex doesn’t really matter – the fact is, by your own admissions, it makes you feel uncomfortable.  There comes a time in everyone’s life when we overcome such childish revulsions.  It’s not society’s problem that you find homosexuality repugnant (or whatever you wish to call it) any more than it is society’s problem that Christians often find casual sex and prostitution repugnant.  Its not society’s problem when my five-year-old daughter is afraid of the dark, nor is it society’s problem when children find gory movies traumatic.  You are simply denying your own mental dysfunction here.

#75 theclapp on Saturday September 19, 2009 at 9:50am

@Charlie #73: The comment you’re responding to (Rhology, #39) was directed at me, not you, part of an ongoing discussion of the foundation of ethics and human rights.  You’re welcome to join in, of course, but be aware that the threading here is nonexistent and you have to use care when replying to people.

There is some evidence that some gay people will even be racist in the name of rights.

Some gay people blamed blacks for the success of prop 8 in the state of California.  I was called a “nigger” because I told some gay people I voted “yes” on prop 8.

So you did something they don’t like and they called you names (which I do not condone).  The question is, do you see any parallels there with them doing something you don’t like and you calling them names?

#76 theclapp on Saturday September 19, 2009 at 9:57am

@Charlie #74:

You said,

Wow.  So some random guy somewhere can make you unhappy by thinking you’re hot?

My reply,

I’ve been in situations where men kept staring at me. I was thinking to myself “I hope this faggot doesn’t come on to me. If he does, I will pretend I don’t know he’s gay and talk major shit about faggots”

Cool, thanks for the confirmation on that.

Good luck on finding happiness.

#77 charlie checkm (Guest) on Saturday September 19, 2009 at 10:11am

You said,

Whether your revulsion to homosexuality is hate-based or merely a simple gag-reflex doesn’t really matter – the fact is, by your own admissions, it makes you feel uncomfortable.

My reply,

So feeling uncomfortable is childish?  So if I feel uncomfortable listening to a dog screw a woman, I’m childish?

You said,

There comes a time in everyone’s life when we overcome such childish revulsions.

My reply,

First of all, the term “childish” is subjective to a degree. I feel uncomfortable around black people who call themselves “niggas” even though I’m black. A black person who uses the n word can say I’m childish because I don’t like to hear that word.

Your claim is just another way to beat people into submission.

ex. Some teens have been called “squares” because they’re uncomfortable with being around people who smoke.

If you want to talk about “rights”. I have the right to have a feeling of disgust because it is a natural emotion.

You said,

It’s not society’s problem that you find homosexuality repugnant (or whatever you wish to call it)

My reply,

It’s the scientists fault that they discovered male’s and female’s brains are different.

The definition of marriage shouldn’t be distorted and misused for the sake of catering to people’s brain malfunctions.

You said,


five-year-old daughter is afraid of the dark, nor is it society’s problem when children find gory movies traumatic.  You are simply denying your own mental dysfunction here.

My reply,

So you are comparing homos having brain malfunctions to a child’s fear of the dark or a horror movie.

That’s what homos do.  So homos main tactic is to downplay gender differences, and make extremely flawed comparisons to try and trick people into thinking that homos don’t have brain malfunctions.

#78 charlie checkm (Guest) on Saturday September 19, 2009 at 10:16am

I won’t be responding to anyone comments until Monday. I have things to do but don’t get your hopes up because I’ll be back if I’m not banned


One more thing, I don’t care if you defriend me. I really don’t. The more animosity I receive from pro-atheists faggots, the more I realize that homosexuality is making Atheists just as crazy as Christians.

#79 Don Hopkins (Guest) on Saturday September 19, 2009 at 10:19am

Charlie you’re arguments against gay marriage make no sense. The fact you’re uncomfortable around homosexuals has nothing to do with being for or gay marriage. Gay marriage has no effect on your attempt to stay away from homosexuals. Just because homosexuals marry doesn’t mean you have to be around them. Also when you say things like: “The definition of marriage shouldn’t be distorted and misused for the sake of catering to people’s brain malfunctions.”

you sound exactly like a fundamentalist christian. What is the definition of marriage? The definition of marriage was created by humans and it constantly changes from era to era, society to society. There’s no logical reason it shouldn’t be changed to expand the possibility of freedom and happiness for more people. You are attempting to justify bigotry by playing the victim. I’m just waiting for you to cite the evil homosexual lobby as the source of all this debate.

#80 charlie checkm (Guest) on Saturday September 19, 2009 at 10:21am

one more thing before I go,

Christians have accused me of being immature because I don’t believe God exist.

So pro-gay Atheists and Christians are using the same damn argument.

Looks like I’m squashing you pro-faggot Atheists one by one.

WHO’S NEXT? BRING IT YOU FAGGOTS

#81 charlie checkm (Guest) on Saturday September 19, 2009 at 10:24am

You said,

Charlie you’re arguments against gay marriage make no sense. The fact you’re uncomfortable around homosexuals has nothing to do with being for or gay marriage.

My reply,

First of all, that’s not my argument against gay marriage. You pro homos LOVE straw man arguments don’t you?

There’s no need for me to respond to the rest of that crap because your premises is false which makes your claim unsound.

#82 charlie checkm (Guest) on Saturday September 19, 2009 at 10:48am

You said,

you sound exactly like a fundamentalist christian.

My reply,

You sound like fundamentalist Christians by using so many straw many arguments.

You said,

What is the definition of marriage? The definition of marriage was created by humans and it constantly changes from era to era, society to society.

My reply,

First of all, the basic marriage definition has always stayed the same and that is between an unrelated man and a woman.

Primitive marriages started off by men capturing a woman by force. Primitive human males never captured other males by force for the sake of getting him pregnant and women never captured other women for sexual purposes

Men also used to pay the woman’s family to have the woman. Men’s stability has always been attractive to women and their families.

Men who were the best hunters were the most desirable to women because they could provide.

You said,

There’s no logical reason it shouldn’t be changed to expand the possibility of freedom and happiness for more people.

My reply,

There’s ANOTHER straw man. Just like I said, homos LOVE straw man arguments.

If what you’re saying is true, every single person who’s not married is unhappy and is not free. Gay people can still live together, love each other, dress like the opposite gender, wear strapped on fake dicks, have anal sex and tare bodily tissue, ect. Women who dress, look, walk, talk, eat, smell, and have mannerism like men can still use the woman’s bathroom. We’re not even stopping that.

You said,

You are attempting to justify bigotry by playing the victim.

My reply,

Do you oppose twin brother marriage? If you do, does that make you a bigot? If I’m a bigot for opposing gay marriage, everyone who opposes twin brother marriage is also a bigot. Is that what you want?  Twin brothers who want to marry can use gay’s same exact argument. So I wonder how many pro-gays are bigots

You said,

I’m just waiting for you to cite the evil homosexual lobby

My reply,

So you’re clearly playing the victim and homos do it ALL the time. I never once called homos evil.  I said they have brain malfunctions which probably pisses them off even more.

#83 charlie checkm (Guest) on Saturday September 19, 2009 at 10:50am

DESTROYING YOU ONE BY ONE

NEXT

#84 Don Hopkins (Guest) on Saturday September 19, 2009 at 11:16am

When I said expanding freedom, I was talking about the legal benefits that come with a marriage license. A gay or lesbian couple that cannot get married are denied freedoms such as adoption, visiting each other in the hospital, ect. Also you said:

“Primitive marriages started off by men capturing a woman by force. Primitive human males never captured other males by force for the sake of getting him pregnant and women never captured other women for sexual purposes”

So what? Why does that mean it can’t be changed?

But regardless of your arguments, the fact that your language is littered with homophobic language reveals the foundation of your arguments. Also, gay people ARE victims when they are denied access to the same legal benefits that heterosexual people are. You’re just crying because people don’t like you’re constant references to “Fags” and “dikes.”

#85 charlie checkm (Guest) on Saturday September 19, 2009 at 11:22am

My argument against gay marriage

More research needs to be conducted

Scientists admit that there’s a lot they don’t know about homosexuality. Another 20-50 years of research needs to be done before we start telling children that gay sexual relationships is perfectly fine and it should be in the same category with heterosexual sexual relationships

Research shows that genetics AND OR environmental influences have an impact on homosexuality.

Thousands of newborns need to be brain scanned at birth,  monitored, and brain scanned at different age stages throughout their lives to have a clear understanding of why, when and how people are gay. That hasn’t been done yet

We need to make sure we know exactly what we’re getting into especially if gays will be raising kids. Even if gays won’t be raising children, gay marriage will have a psychological effect on how children view marriage and sexual relationships.

I see that environmental influences are being downplayed by the pro-gays.  More research needs to be done but according to the words of gay teens themselves, environmental influences is more vital than pro-gays claim

Check out my blog “gay teen predators

#86 theclapp on Saturday September 19, 2009 at 11:51am

Charlie,

I checked out your “gay teen predators” blog.  I didn’t read it all.  I’m curious that you apparently hold up teenagers (known to be pretty angsty, sexually speaking, gay or straight) as support against gays in general and against gay marriage in particular.  Have I misunderstood you?

Are you familiar with the adage “the plural of anecdote is not data”?

Also, can you think of anything what might influence you to change your mind, or even just reconsider your stance?  For example, if research came out falsifying the gay/straight brain differences that you’re so jazzed about.  Or if the US passed a law requiring all homosexuals to wear, say, a Scarlet H, so you could see them coming, and made it legal to beat them up.  Or if scientists showed conclusively that homosexuals make as good parents as straight couples.  Can you think of anything at all, however unlikely, that might conceivably change your mind?  Just pushing the #17 here.

#87 charlie checkm (Guest) on Saturday September 19, 2009 at 12:02pm

You said,

When I said expanding freedom, I was talking about the legal benefits that come with a marriage license. A gay or lesbian couple that cannot get married are denied freedoms such as adoption, visiting each other in the hospital, ect. Also you said:

My reply,

Laws can be made to grant some of those things WITHOUT allowing gay marriage.

You have to consider other factors

1. People pretending to be gay and marry their friends just to help their friends become legal citizens. It will make it more easier than trying to find someone of the opposite sex.

2. People pretending to be gay just to benefit from marriage benefits


You said,

But regardless of your arguments, the fact that your language is littered with homophobic language reveals the foundation of your arguments.

My reply,

There it is again.  Deceitful gays using the term “homophobic” as an attempt to beat their prey into submission and throw negative label on ANYONE who opposes gay marriage.

On top of that, you’re outright LYING about the foundation of my argument. What you’re really saying is, “please don’t listen to charlie because he might convince you that we’re really fucked up in the head”

You said,

Also, gay people ARE victims when they are denied access to the same legal benefits that heterosexual people are.

My reply,

Well it’s either children will be victimized or gays will be victimized and I choose gays.  Just like I said, we need to make SURE we know what we’re getting into especially if gays will be raising kids. So more research needs to be done FIRST.

Gays would like us to just close the door on research and hurry up and make gay marriage widely accepted before researchers find something that won’t be in their favor.

You said,

You’re just crying because people don’t like you’re constant references to “Fags” and “dikes.”

My reply,

Now that’s an ad hominid. You’re using words like “crying” to describe and portray me in a negative light.

Just like I said, you gays can be so deceitful.

#88 charlie checkm (Guest) on Saturday September 19, 2009 at 12:05pm

I have to go now, I won’t be responding until monday. I have things to do.

#89 DagoRed (Guest) on Saturday September 19, 2009 at 7:12pm

Debbie Goddard (#61) says:

</i> I do think that Charlie’s making some relevant arguments here…Here’s one argument I think is relevant….<i>

Your point made me want to do some research.  I agree some of these ideas Charlie has presented, at least in part, are worth exploration.  You brought up Charlie’s vague reference to homosexual brains having similarities to brains of the opposite sex.  While Charlie was quick to conclude this study supports his argument of homosexual brains as malfunctioning, even a simple perusal of the layman news article on this study(<a >original technical study</a> and <a >layman news article </a>) shows he was way off base. 

In fact, in light of the actual evidence, Charlie not only uses this study to support his own erroneous presumptions, but he also ignores the more obvious ramifications of it.  This study, in fact, by suggesting that homosexuality is a biological trait—like skin color or intelligence or physical disability—it would place many current restrictions on sexual orientation in violation of several federal and state equal rights and civil rights laws, which are widely supported based on this biological distinction.  If someone cannot help being the way they are, it seems unethical to place legal restrictions that conflicts with their biology.

Another reasonable point that Charlie brings up that I noted, was in his insistence that homosexuality stands in the way of our “fitness” as a species in the greater evolutionary struggle for survival.  The question being, since homosexual behavior can’t result in reproduction – the back bone of evolution – does it actually harm humanity’s ability to compete in the evolutionary struggle for survival? (and thus we might be justified in repressing it in society).

The superficial evidence I can find tends to point to homosexuality being “selectively neutral” (that is, it does not effect evolutionary outcomes directly).  Dr. Joan Roughgarten has documentation for over 450 different vertebrate species that exhibit homosexual behavior.  This means that homosexual behavior is hardly a human anomaly, as many people want to think, but it is more likely normal behavior for many species, and therefore likely has necessary functions in these species survival, even if it is not direct reproduction.  In short, homosexuality might have indirect benefits that help survival of the next generation.  Homosexual acceptance can, for example, promote community bonding by supplanting aggressive and violent behaviors that might otherwise exist (the “Hell has no Wrath like a frustrated homo” syndrome).  Secondly, there might be greater benefit in homosexuals providing ancillary services to the “breeding” population that compensate for their lack of contribution – such as providing child-rearing assistance, matchmaking skills, promoting of family through roles as social leaders, etc.  Lastly, central to this whole idea of “sex=reproduction” argument is the fact that sex is hardly just about reproduction (I am sure Charlie does not want every sexual encounter he has in life to result in a child) but, in the vast majority of cases its about having fun and expressing affection (I.e. the same goals in homosexual sex).  A simple armchair thought experiment would convince anyone that far less than 1% of sexual encounters actually produce a child (especially when considering masturbation as part of sex).  So, the difference between hetero- and homo- reproductive success is really a very small portion of sexual encounters.  That clearly shows that to single out a sector of society for being a tiny bit more wasteful is merely a moot point (unless we all want to return to Puritan sexual practices).  So, again, this second seeming relevant point Charlie makes (a common one made by many people), I think, clearly falls a part when we dump the trash talk and look at it reasonably.  I hope this info helps and I am interested if you have made any conclusions yourself regarding the “Should atheist organizations withhold support” from people like Charlie, given the outpouring of responses here?

#90 DagoRed on Saturday September 19, 2009 at 7:15pm

Sorry, forgot to login…here’s the links to Charlie’s so called evidence to why “Homo brains are malfunctioning”
(<a >original technical study</a> and <a >layman news article </a>)

#91 DagoRed on Saturday September 19, 2009 at 7:16pm

Okay, one more time (no html tags for links, huh?)
original technical study:
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/27/9403.full?sid=ef2ec0dd-d2f2-4502-9fa8-34f71d0d0d5d
layman article about the study: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&refer=home&sid=aTtnUpHVNgKg

#92 asanta on Saturday September 19, 2009 at 7:39pm

I REAALLY would like to stop getting responses to this blog post! The bigot and fundie will never change their minds.I hope that unchecking ‘notify me of follow up comments’ THIS time will finally get me off…..

#93 theclapp on Sunday September 20, 2009 at 3:29pm

@Asanta, #93: Have you clicked the “To stop receiving notifications for this comment, click here” link at the bottom of each notification email?

#94 charlie check'm (Guest) on Sunday September 20, 2009 at 5:11pm

You said,

While Charlie was quick to conclude this study supports his argument of homosexual brains as malfunctioning, even a simple perusal of the layman news article on this study(<a >original technical study</a> and <a >layman news article </a>) shows he was way off base.

My reply,

That was vague. You claim the layman news articles show that I’m off base about what? You made sure to be vague about that one because you didn’t have a choice.

You said,

This study, in fact, by suggesting that homosexuality is a biological trait—like skin color or intelligence or physical disability—it would place many current restrictions on sexual orientation in violation of several federal and state equal rights and civil rights laws, which are widely supported based on this biological distinction.  If someone cannot help being the way they are, it seems unethical to place legal
restrictions that conflicts with their biology.

My reply,

First of all, skin color isn’t a malfunction and unlike skin color, scientists don’t know if newborns brains are malfunctioned at birth yet. Like I said in my other post, more research needs to be conducted.  So you’re lumping characteristics together that shouldn’t be lumped together. Schizophrenic people can’t help the way they are so should they be allowed to marry the voice in their heads? Should they be allowed to marry their imaginary friend?  Should people be allowed to marry their twin siblings of the same sex?  I haven’t heard ONE argument against that yet. You people are cherry picking my arguments. Should we place legal restriction on people who want to marry their twin same sex sibling? Twin brothers can’t have kids so what’s the problem?  Just like i stated before, (which no one has challenged yet) twin brothers who want to marry can use gays same exact argument.

You said,

Dr. Joan Roughgarten has documentation for over 450 different vertebrate species that exhibit homosexual behavior.  This means that homosexual behavior is hardly a human anomaly, as many people want to think, but it is more likely normal behavior for many species, and therefore likely has necessary functions in these species survival, even if it is not direct reproduction.

My reply,

Even more species do cannibalism so does that mean humans shouldn’t have restrictions on eating their dead relatives?  Brain malfunctions aren’t limited to humans.

You said,

In short, homosexuality might have indirect benefits that help survival of the next generation.

My reply,

There hasn’t been enough research to come to that conclusion. There is evidence that homosexuality does have some environmental influences. There’s also evidence that gay men have the highest cases of hiv and bisexuals are the hiv distributors to women.

Homosexual acceptance can, for example, promote community bonding by supplanting aggressive and violent behaviors that might otherwise exist (the “Hell has no Wrath like a frustrated homo” syndrome).

My reply,

Domestic violence among gays is just as high if not HIGHER than domestic violence among straight people relationships so don’t try to deceive people into thinking that gays are better behaved.  Also, community bonding among gays and straights can lead to higher hiv cases because straight people who hang out with gay people have a better chance of having sex with bisexuals. Just like I said, gay men have the highest cases of hiv and they do have sex with bisexuals.  Bisexuals, homos, and straights who hang out together mingle together and all of that increases the chances of bisexuals spreading the hiv virus to straight people.

You said,

Secondly, there might be greater benefit in homosexuals providing ancillary services to the “breeding” population that compensate for their lack of contribution – such as providing child-rearing assistance, matchmaking skills, promoting of family through roles as social leaders, etc.

My reply,

Just like I stated in the other post, there is evidence that homosexuality has some environmental influences and there hasn’t been enough research on homosexuality to just let them raise STRAIGHT children.

You said,

Lastly, central to this whole idea of “sex=reproduction” argument is the fact that sex is hardly just about reproduction (I am sure Charlie does not want every sexual encounter he has in life to result in a child) but, in the vast majority of cases its about having fun and expressing affection (I.e. the same goals in homosexual sex).

My reply,

That’s a straw man argument which homos LOVE to use. I never said “sex = reproduction” I did say sexual attraction is driven by unconscious reproduction desires. Sexual attraction wouldn’t exist without unconscious reproduction desires. Even if a person is infertile, their sexual attraction is still driven by unconscious reproduction desires.

You said,

does it actually harm humanity’s ability to compete in the evolutionary struggle for survival? (and thus we might be justified in repressing it in society).

My reply,

Placing a foreign species in a habitat that had been untouched for thousands of years has proven to have a negative effect evolution.  Humans have mostly separated themselves from the gay community. Intermingling with the gay community possibly could have a negative effect on evolution especially considering the fact that there’s evidence that homosexuality has some environmental influences. More research needs to be conducted

Gay people would love to just close the door on research before scientists discovers something that won’t be in gays favor.

So you made an attempt to downplay my argument by using flawed comparisons, straw man arguments and out right lies.

#95 charlie check'm (Guest) on Sunday September 20, 2009 at 5:19pm

Gay people are using christian-like tactics

There is much we don’t know about the universe and Christians are trying to fill in the blanks to further their agenda.

There’s much we don’t know about homosexuality and homos are trying to fill in the blanks to further their agenda.

Christians are saying, since we don’t know, lets just say god did it.

Homos are saying, since we don’t know, let’s just let gays marry and raise kids.

#96 charlie check'm (Guest) on Sunday September 20, 2009 at 5:28pm

WHAT IS IT, 10 AGAINST ONE?

ATHEIST RAPPER DESTROYING YOU FAGGOTS AND DYKES ONE BY ONE

NEXT

#97 jacob h (Guest) on Sunday September 20, 2009 at 6:50pm

charlie, if you don’t care for people characterizing you as a “crying” “bigot” “homophobe”, then may I suggest you stop throwing around terms such as “faggot”, “pro-gay”, and “you gays”.  You are a rank hypocrite, you crying baby homophobic bigot, and I think we all know who’s brain is malfunctioning here; yours, at least what there is of it.  go back to school and learn to spell simple, four letter words such as “tear” (not “tare” you idiot), then you may get people to take you seriously

#98 jacob h (Guest) on Sunday September 20, 2009 at 7:23pm

I actually have a new theory, it’s that this guy is just to try to drum up publicity/attention.  He got nowhere as a wannabe Graydon Square, so now he’s the atheist HOMOPHOBE rapper - that makes him unique again, see?  still doesn’t seem to be working though, out of his 3 albums available on iTunes, he has scored a whole 3 reviews (not even enough for a #star rating), and 2 of those reviews were by the same person.  I am sure the people who wrote the reviews are totally unrelated to him.

#99 charlie check'm (Guest) on Sunday September 20, 2009 at 8:36pm

You said,

He got nowhere as a wannabe Graydon Square, so now he’s the atheist HOMOPHOBE rapper

My reply,

First of all, I never wanted to be just an ATHEIST rapper like Greydon Square. I only have one atheist rap album. Greydon Square specifically caters to Atheists on EVERY album. I have a wider variety of subject matters.

This whole controversey started because of a discussion about gay marriage. They disagreed with me and someone discovered I’m Charlie Check’m and urged the atheists to not support my music. They also set out to prevent me from performing at the Atheist convention.  They also set out to try to boycott my music by spreading the word the that I’m a so-called “homophobe”. So how in the hell did I purposely start all of this shit?

You said,

still doesn’t seem to be working though, out of his 3 albums available on iTunes, he has scored a whole 3 reviews

my reply,

the number of views isn’t a good indication if sales. So many people buy music and never give reviews. My Barack Obama song sold 10,000 during the time of the election. That’s pretty good for an independent.

#100 charlie check'm (Guest) on Monday September 21, 2009 at 7:17am

This is how fucked up you pro-gay atheists actually are

Greydon Squoare PHYSICALLY ATTACKS a fellow ATHEIST and puts him in the hospital. He attacks the same atheist who helped get his music out. No one urges people to not support him. No one calls THAT an embarrassment to atheists. No one tries to boycott his music.

Charlie Check’m (me) simply opposed gay marriage in a discussion forurm and they set out to boycott my ATHEIST music, start a whole campaign against me, call me every name in the book, ban me from performing at the atheist convention, urge people to not support my ATHEIST music, claim I’m a complete embarrassment to atheists

opposing gay marriage-vs -PHYSICALLY ATTACKING a fellow atheist at an ATHEIST convention

Imagine a Christian church urging people to boycott Christian music because the Christian singer supports gay marriage.

What kind of idiot ATHEISTS would try to boycott ATHEIST MUSIC over a simple disagreement that has nothing to do with atheism. 

This is why I believe homosexuality is making Atheists crazy as hell. YOU ARE A BUNCH OF FUCKING LUNATICS

Go ahead and defriend me, FUCK YOU.  Several people are asking me where they can buy my song “no gay marriage”

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.